DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This non-final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 16 March 2026. Claims 1. 3-7, and 9-11 are examined and pending. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended and claim 2 and 8 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Applicant submits that these features make it explicitly clear that the claims cannot be considered a mental process by explicitly reciting that "the processing circuitry is further configured to set a geo-fence as a boundary surrounding the bus platform at a predetermined distance from a location of the boarding bus platform; detect that the terminal of the user approaches the boarding bus platform, based on terminal position information indicating that the terminal has checked into the geo-fence based on a detected location of the terminal; and predict the platform arrival time when the approach of the terminal to the boarding bus platform is detected." It is not practical to perform these features as a mental process.
Additionally, as described in the specification, there is a problem that passengers crowd into a specific bus vehicle in buses that operate in a predetermined operation section. causing the occurrence of a variation in crowdedness degree between bus vehicles and a disruption in an operation schedule. Furthermore, a user who boards a bus may want to move while avoiding crowdedness even though arrival at a destination is somewhat delayed. The existing technological environment lacked a solution to this problem.
Thus, the present claims provide a technological solution to alleviate a variation in crowdedness degree and a disruption in an operation schedule due to crowding of passengers into a specific bus in buses that operate in a predetermined operation section.
Therefore, the present claims as a whole provide an improvement to this technological environment and also integrate any interpreted judicial exception into a clear practical application. In this context, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the claimed invention is not"akin" to a "method of organizing human activity." The claims are therefore not directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, and the rejection must therefore be withdrawn. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner is taking an interpretation where a person can theoretically
perform the functions of the claim). The Examiner further interprets the features related to
the use of a geofence as being insignificant extra-solution activity.
However, the use of the geofence to set the boundary is a significant use of
technology that enables the automated determination and recommendation to a terminal of a
user. This is now clarified in the claims by reciting "set a geo-fence as a boundary
surrounding the boarding bus platform at a predetermined distance from a location of the
boarding bus platform; and detect that a terminal of the user approaches the boarding bus
platform, based on terminal position information indicating that the terminal has checked into the geo-fence based on a detected location of the terminal; when the approach of the terminal to the boarding bus platform is detected, the processing circuitry is configured to automatically: predict a platform arrival time as a time at which the user will arrive at the boarding bus platform, extract the boarding-scheduled bus arriving at the boarding bus platform after the platform arrival time, acquire a crowdedness degree of passengers of the extracted boarding-scheduled bus, search for, when the crowdedness degree of the boarding- scheduled bus is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, as a recommended bus, a bus operating in a boarding section where the user is able to board from any platform among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop, arriving at each platform after a possible arrival time as a time at which the user is able to arrive at each platform, and having a crowdedness degree less than the predetermined degree, and present recommendation information regarding the recommended bus to the terminal of the user."
Furthermore, the features of Claim 8 are now incorporated into Claim 1 and 11, which recite "wherein the processing circuitry is configured to search for, as the recommended bus, a bus that is able to be boarded by the user from a platform, which has a distance or a moving time from the boarding bus platform within a required distance or a required time, among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop."
These features further clarify that the claimed invention is not merely an abstract idea of performing a schedule calculation, but a technical system that performs searching based on the user's physical movement capability. With this amendment, the system provides specific technical features to address real-world physical constraints (distance and time).
In addition to the reasons already submitted in the previous response, the present amendments make it explicitly clear that the present claims as a whole provide an improvement to this technological environment and also integrate any interpreted judicial exception into a clear practical application. Applicant would also like to also draw the Office's attention to Ex Parte Guillaume
Desjardins et al., which was very recently decided by the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"), see PTAB Appeal No. 2024-000567 (Sept. 26, 2025), p. 9. In this case, the §101 rejection was overturned "because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation. ... Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality (emphasis added).
In this case, the present claims should not generally be considered a mental process in view of the technical and concrete features (pointed out above), that are required to achieve the claimed result.
Furthermore, Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins also showed that even if a claim recites an abstract idea, this does not mean that the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea, and thus cannot support the rejection. Id. at p. 10 (holding that while the independent claim may recite an abstract idea, it is not directed to an abstract idea, and that the independent claim, when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application).
Therefore, it is believed that the claims do recite the "improvement" at a proper level of specificity, especially in view of the recent decision of Ex Parte Desjardins.
In this context, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the claimed invention is not "akin" to a "mental process." The claims are therefore not directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, and the rejection must therefore be withdrawn.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recited predict a platform arrival time as a time at which the user will arrive at the boarding bus platform; search for, when the crowdedness degree of the boarding-scheduled bus is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, as a recommended bus, a bus operating in a boarding section where the user is able to board from any platform among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop, arriving at each platform after a possible arrival time as a time at which the user is able to arrive at each platform, and having a crowdedness degree less than the predetermined degree; search for, as the recommended bus a bus that is able to be boarded by the user from a platform, which has a distance or a moving time from the boarding bus platform within a required distance or a required time, among the platform included in the boarding bus stop. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as current location of user, boarding bus platform location(s), distance data, time data, and crowd or passengers data in the bus could predict a platform arrival time as a time at which the user will arrive at the boarding bus platform and search for, when the crowdedness degree of the boarding-scheduled bus is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, as a recommended bus, a bus operating in a boarding section where the user is able to board from any platform among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop, arriving at each platform after a possible arrival time as a time at which the user is able to arrive at each platform, and having a crowdedness degree less than the predetermined degree; predict the platform arrival time when the approach of the terminal to the boarding bus platform is detected. The mere nominal recitation of “a processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Further, the setting, the acquiring, extraction, presenting, and detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (boarding schedule of a bus, crowdedness degree of passengers in the bus, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The presenting and setting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of the processing circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Moreover, Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, extracting, acquiring, detecting, presenting, setting, and processing circuitry elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claims recite predict a platform arrival time as a time at which the user will arrive at the boarding bus platform; search for, when the crowdedness degree of the boarding-scheduled bus is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, as a recommended bus, a bus operating in a boarding section where the user is able to board from any platform among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop, arriving at each platform after a possible arrival time as a time at which the user is able to arrive at each platform, and having a crowdedness degree less than the predetermined degree; search for, as the recommended bus, a bus that is able to be boarded by the user from a platform, which has a distance or a moving time from the boarding bus platform within a required distance or a required time, among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop; search for, as the recommended bus, a bus that is able to be boarded by the user from a platform, which has a distance or a moving time from the boarding bus platform within a required distance or a required time, among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop. These limitation(s), as drafted, are (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as current location of user, boarding bus platform location(s), distance data, time data, and crowd or passengers data in the bus could predict a platform arrival time as a time at which the user will arrive at the boarding bus platform and search for, when the crowdedness degree of the boarding-scheduled bus is equal to or greater than a predetermined degree, as a recommended bus, a bus operating in a boarding section where the user is able to board from any platform among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop, arriving at each platform after a possible arrival time as a time at which the user is able to arrive at each platform, and having a crowdedness degree less than the predetermined degree; search for, as the recommended bus, a bus that is able to be boarded by the user from a platform, which has a distance or a moving time from the boarding bus platform within a required distance or a required time, among the platforms included in the boarding bus stop. The mere nominal recitation of “a processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
Independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of detecting that a terminal of the user approaches the boarding bus platform, based on terminal position information indicating that the terminal has checked into the geo-fence based on a detected location of the terminal; extracting a boarding-scheduled bus arriving at the boarding bus platform after the platform arrival time; acquiring a crowdedness degree of passengers of the boarding-scheduled bus extracted; present recommendation information regarding the recommended bus to a terminal of the user; detect that the terminal of the user approaches the boarding bus platform, based on terminal position information indicating that the terminal has checked into the geo- fence based on a detected location of the terminal; set a geo-fence as a boundary surrounding the bus platform at a predetermined distance from a location of the boarding bus platform; and a processing circuitry. The acquiring, extraction, and detecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (boarding schedule of a bus, crowdedness degree of passengers in the bus, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The presenting and setting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of the processing circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the extracting, acquiring, detecting, presenting, and setting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 3-7 and 9-10 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 37 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-7, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights